In front of the historical importance of the first financial bill of the new Cameron age, many observers and some nostalgic, had dreamt about the return of the Thatcherism. But analyzing carefully the spending review goals, contents and method, can be honestly affirmed that the dream won’t become reality. Thatcher and Cameron are different for political, economical and social reasons.
As probably someone remembers, the day after a ferocious campaign against Unions and state bureaucracy, Margaret Thatcher was elected in June 1979.
An extraordinary event, which against previsions at a time of a serous economic crisis, lead the iron lady party to Westminster by a majority of 43 parliamentary seats against Labour party. This is the first difference, in fact, in the elections last may Cameron obtained a narrow majority which forced him to make alliances with Nick Clegg liberals. Basically, to not be hung into the Parliament, the new English Prime Minister has hung the traditional British bipartisan system.
But there are also other reasons. Cameron doesn’t fight trade unions, but welfare. In other words, Tories, today as yesterday have in common the fight against state, but adopted strategies are completely different.
Maggie’s government, as a matter of fact, enacted huge deregulation and privatization programs, wrecking trade unions power and closing hundreds of steel factories and mines. At the same time, for public order reasons, didn’t fight against welfare. On the contrary, she increased in part welfare state to kindly reach minds and hearts.
English right winger of the new millenium, in the other side, have taken another street. The Cameron-Osbourne partnership, because of the hard law decided by numbers, has decided to manage the welfare system even if in the name of that war against state which had started 30 years ago by the iron lady.
The god of numbers asks today cold minds for warm hearts.
____________
See also:
Perfidious Albion again? – by Raffaele Padovano
On the inside: